Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
In the book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, American author Dave Grossman interviewed a veteran, who claims that the majority of people are sheep, in that they are incapable of "true aggression", "bloodlust", "battle fury", "bloodwrath", or beserker-state. These people are non-aggressive and empathic. On the other hand, there are people who have aggression, though are empathic, which makes them sheepdogs (possibly identified as Bear-warriors in Viking mythology, or "bodyguards"). Wild dogs are people who are generally non-aggressive, though lack empathy (possibly related to Boar-warriors in Viking lore, identified as "dangerous when cornered" and "champions of kings"). Finally, there are people who are aggressive and lack empathy, referred to as wolves (possibly related to Wolf-warriors in Viking mythology, or "elite warriors").

The scientific community possibly identifies Wild dogs as sociopaths (people who become what they are as a result of environment, or people without empathy), and Wolves as psychopaths (people who are born with aggressive tendencies and lack empathy), and treat these conditions as forms of mental illness. However, Dave Grossman argues that they are part of personality types. It's likely that the sociopaths are people of the Reptilian or Sexorgan-meld Frequency temperament, while the psychopaths are people of the 7PM and 8PM Role Temperament, who might also experience sexual repression (such as being closeted homosexuals). Dave also notes that sheepdogs are biologically predisposed to deal with wild dogs and wolves, which make them valuable members of the police and military; sheepdogs know that there are people who will hurt others when given the chance, and are therefore prepared to face that threat. It's also likely that sheepdogs are known for being aggressive during childhood, though usually in defense against bullies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Sounds like this author is literally putting people into boxes, when it's more like a spectrum or scale. Everyone uses aggression, and most are somewhere between the sheep and the sheepdog.
The author talks about "true aggression", as in having a murderous rage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
In the book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, American author Dave Grossman interviewed a veteran, who claims that the majority of people are sheep, in that they are incapable of "true aggression", "bloodlust", "battle fury", "bloodwrath", or beserker-state. These people are non-aggressive and empathic. On the other hand, there are people who have aggression, though are empathic, which makes them sheepdogs (possibly identified as Bear-warriors in Viking mythology, or "bodyguards"). Wild dogs are people who are generally non-aggressive, though lack empathy (possibly related to Boar-warriors in Viking lore, identified as "dangerous when cornered" and "champions of kings"). Finally, there are people who are aggressive and lack empathy, referred to as wolves (possibly related to Wolf-warriors in Viking mythology, or "elite warriors").

The scientific community possibly identifies Wild dogs as sociopaths (people who become what they are as a result of environment, or people without empathy), and Wolves as psychopaths (people who are born with aggressive tendencies and lack empathy), and treat these conditions as forms of mental illness. However, Dave Grossman argues that they are part of personality types. It's likely that the sociopaths are people of the Reptilian or Sexorgan-meld Frequency temperament, while the psychopaths are people of the 7PM and 8PM Role Temperament, who might also experience sexual repression (such as being closeted homosexuals). Dave also notes that sheepdogs are biologically predisposed to deal with wild dogs and wolves, which make them valuable members of the police and military; sheepdogs know that there are people who will hurt others when given the chance, and are therefore prepared to face that threat. It's also likely that sheepdogs are known for being aggressive during childhood, though usually in defense against bullies.
I actually really liked this book! I thought his argument on how society trains people to kill very interesting. I believe it was at the start of the book he talks about how the majority of animals do not kill each other, even when fighting over mates, food or territory. They fight until one back down. Then he compares that to humans and the different wars we have had. I think he mentions that the US started implementing different ways to program humans to go against their inherent nature to not kill and that is why the Vietnam war was so deadly in terms of the number of soldiers dying. I can't remember if it was the most killed in an American war or not but I believe that the accuracy of the shooting had increased compared to other wars due to people being more willing to kill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I actually really liked this book! I thought his argument on how society trains people to kill very interesting. I believe it was at the start of the book he talks about how the majority of animals do not kill each other, even when fighting over mates, food or territory. They fight until one back down. Then he compares that to humans and the different wars we have had. I think he mentions that the US started implementing different ways to program humans to go against their inherent nature to not kill and that is why the Vietnam war was so deadly in terms of the number of soldiers dying. I can't remember if it was the most killed in an American war or not but I believe that the accuracy of the shooting had increased compared to other wars due to people being more willing to kill.
Yes, that's a very good summary. Most animals fight until the other submits, or intimidates the other so a fight doesn't occur. There is rarely an intention to kill or fatally wound an opponent. In battle, most participants either don't shoot at human targets, or fire above their heads when pulling the trigger. After the Korean war, the military uses life-sized, human-shaped targets, and starts to simulate the battle environment, by rewarding those soldiers who immediately pull the trigger upon spotting a target.

This increases the shooting-at-enemy frequency in the Vietnam War. However, because many people are not conditioned to kill, their trigger-happy instinct conflicts with their natural instinct to not kill other people, which also explains the emotional wounds that many combat veterans experience. However, he also mentions that there are members of society who exhibit "true aggression", or the urge to kill others under circumstances, like when angry, which he calls sheepdogs and wolves. There are also those who don't have "true aggression", though they also lack empathy, which allows them to kill without remorse in situations that allow killing (or kill people without considering or knowing that their actions can kill).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
So how these would translate in mbti language in your opinion?
Thank you for your interest. I've written about how this Temperament system can be used, with respect to Assertive/ Charmer people, and Intentpathic/ Empathic people. You can read about it here: https://www.personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/1307067-mbti-champion-temperaments-assertive-charmer-empathy-intentpathy.html I have also included a diagram, showing the INFJ, SoCom, hands-on learner, physical intimacy love language in the four temperaments of this system, called Champion Temperaments
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top